Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

7
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
75% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Mario Valle Reyes 🚩🚩🚩 on X

Who’s in San Francisco going to #ClawCon ? I remember we were 35 in the Luma page just a few days ago. Now the number is 700+. This is the San Francisco I met when I moved here in 2010. See you there! pic.twitter.com/Hd4mJjagby

Posted by Mario Valle Reyes 🚩🚩🚩
View original →

Perspectives

Both analyses agree the post is largely a personal promotion with minimal manipulative cues; the critical view notes slight cherry‑picking and nostalgic framing, while the supportive view emphasizes its ordinary, non‑coordinated nature. Overall the content appears low in manipulation.

Key Points

  • Both perspectives note the post uses personal anecdote and nostalgia, which is typical for genuine posts.
  • The critical perspective flags selective attendance numbers (35→700) as cherry‑picked but lacks source, a mild bandwagon cue.
  • Neither perspective finds urgent language, calls to action, or coordinated amplification, reducing suspicion.
  • The supportive perspective’s confidence metric (8000%) is implausibly high, so its quantitative weight should be treated cautiously.

Further Investigation

  • Verify the attendance figures by checking the referenced “Luma page” or official event records.
  • Search for the exact phrasing across other accounts or platforms to rule out coordinated duplication.
  • Review the author’s posting history for patterns of promotion or manipulation.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
The message offers no limited‑choice framing; it merely shares information about attendance numbers.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
The tweet does not create an "us vs. them" framing; it simply references a community event.
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
No good‑vs‑evil or black‑and‑white storyline is presented.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Searches revealed no concurrent major news story or political event that this tweet could be diverting attention from, indicating organic timing.
Historical Parallels 1/5
The content lacks the hallmarks of historic propaganda (e.g., demonising opponents, state‑sponsored narratives) and aligns with ordinary social‑media event promotion.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No organization, campaign, or financial beneficiary is identified; the post appears to be personal rather than promotional.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
While the tweet asks "Who’s in...", it does not assert that a majority is already attending or pressure readers to conform.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
Hashtag activity for #ClawCon is stable; there is no evidence of a sudden surge meant to force rapid opinion change.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Only this user posted the exact wording; no coordinated duplication across multiple accounts was found.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
Implying that the event is now large based solely on the cited numbers could be a hasty generalisation, but the claim is factual rather than argumentative.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts, officials, or authoritative sources are cited to bolster the claim.
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
The author cites a specific growth figure (35 to 700) without providing a source, selectively highlighting a positive trend.
Framing Techniques 3/5
The tweet frames the event nostalgically (“This is the San Francisco I met when I moved here in 2010”), which subtly appeals to personal sentiment.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
There is no mention or labeling of opposing viewpoints or critics.
Context Omission 3/5
The tweet references a "Luma page" without explaining what it is, leaving readers without context about the original attendance figure.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
The claim that attendance grew from 35 to 700 is presented as a factual update, not as a sensational or unprecedented revelation.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
The message contains a single emotional cue (nostalgia) and does not repeat fear‑or‑outrage triggers.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
There is no expression of anger or scandal; the tweet is a straightforward invitation.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No immediate demand or deadline is presented; the author simply invites others to attend the event.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
The tweet uses a neutral tone; there is no language invoking fear, guilt, or outrage (e.g., "Who’s in San Francisco going to #ClawCon?").

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Doubt Reductio ad hitlerum Straw Man
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else